A week ago, our top venues for NuBit liquidity were BTER, CCEDK, Excoin and Allcoin. Together, these 4 exchanges hosted 99% of open market NuBit trading. Today, liquidity cannot be provided on any of these four venues. BTER and Excoin have ceased operations permanently, CCEDK had a service interruption due to DDOS attacks that is still being resolved (in terms of liquidity operations). Allcoin has just had somewhat credible threats of exploit made against it, citing flaws in its software and infrastructure. It would be fair to say that losing our top 4 venues for liquidity all within a week is bad luck. It is also certainly temporary, as new liquidity venues such as bitcoin.co.id, Poloniex and Bitspark will be quickly ramped up. Still, it will take a little time for liquidity operations and NuBit trading to migrate. Please be patient as we undergo this transition. There are many times as much buy side liquidity held and temporarily unavailable compared to what is shown in the Nu client. Because of the loss of venues, we are having trouble bringing it to market at the moment.

@creon Although I like your proposal, we do need to ensure we are ready for open sourcing. Providing it only to one exchange before other people can have there eyes on it at the same time exposes us to potential exploits of bugs in the code which won’t be picked up by the wider community at the same time.

I would advocate to open the code to all at once at an announced date so everyone has a fair chance to look at the code at the same time and report any serious bugs or issues.

On the positive side I can say that Poloniex is having a good time, from outside: a renewed trading engine, finally a more than decent user interface, crypto-usd named markets. We are also in contact with one of the engineers .

I’m not a fan of having staff at an exchange finding flaws before anyone else could. I understand the need to get another exchange aboard and Bittrex appears to be under US jurisdiction. But that doesn’t stop anyone from running with the money or bribing others when they get an unique chance to do so.

But that doesn’t stop anyone from running with the money or bribing others when they get an unique chance to do so.

This is certainly correct, however, Bittrex organized many ICO’s under similar circumstances regarding source code availability. They also have a lot of reputation to lose, probably worth more than Nu’s current market cap. Several coins even approached them or cryptsy to have a security audit before releasing the source code.

So while I agree that there is a theoretical risk, I see it as a small one. But if this topic creates too many controversies then let’s just wait until the code will be public for everyone - it was just an idea to quickly get an exchange on board which doesn’t go down on the first small DDoS.

I find it very hard to assess the risk. It appears to be small, but a lot at stake. If they are attacked (or inside job) and we loose source code and more funds I think it is the end. So I’m tend to be very cautious, but maybe overcautious.

Do we know people who know these people well or do we just rely on their website and a good account manager showing off with reputation? I really hope so. I know banks with good reputation and still being hacked because their security was bad, but they manage to deal with it and compensate clients without any communications to outside world. It happens all the time and only sometimes it makes the media. So when Bittrex says they have never been attacked or hacked, I would be very careful. Just my views.

Others please feel free to chip in. Hate to be the only one with concerns. It is all about balancing risks and potential profits.

I share your concerns, @Cybnate, but just like you said: it’s all about balancing risks and potential profits.
I can’t assess the risk of granting bittrex access to the source code before it’s open to everyone. I can’t calculate any value for the risk.
I can’t calculate the potential profit as well.
So it will be hard to make an educated guess whether the risk or the potential profit is bigger.

If we assume that getting NBT listed at bittrex saves NuNet from paying some parking rate interest, generates more adoption, more transactions, more awareness of NuNet, this could be very well worth several thousand NBT in the next weeks and even more in the next months. Especially if it turns out to be a stepping stone effect!

With the successful passage of this motion, the Nu Shareholders[1] (“Shareholders”) have instructed the Nu Development Team[2] (“Developers”) to make the Nu source code available to the general public.

I don’t see how bittrex can be treated differently from the rest of the world. That seems to be in conflict with the motion to open the source code.
As we know the motion says